all 25 comments

[–]shilldetector 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

WTF is with your obsession with Native Americans? That are a statistically insignificant group with no institutional power who were the original inhabitants of this land and hence have some legit claim to some kind of privileges based on past injustices. At least those that are actually mostly Indian and were raised in the culture, and not just some white person milking it because they found out they have some ancestry.

Unlike African Americans, it's not like they can just return to their ancestral homeland if they dont like the way things are. This IS their homeland.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (18 children)

This IS their homeland.

Too bad, they lost a war against people who fought for the same land. If it was not Europeans, it would have been the Chinese or other Natives like the Aztecs.

If anything, they got off easy. Natives today get to run tax free casinos and are protected by the world's most powerful army. Compare this to the Palestinians or Tibetans who are actually oppressed and can't move up in life.

Unlike African Americans, it's not like they can just return to their ancestral homeland

Technically, the Natives first came from Asia. So if they really hate it, get a plane ticket and move to Siberia. Or go live somewhere else in the Americas like Mexico or Brazil. Those places have lots of land.

[–]shilldetector 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I'm not saying they are oppressed and all this other shit. I'm saying they are an odd group to focus all your anger towards for the reasons I already mentioned. Sure they can opportunistically be used as tools to bludgeon white people with, by the usual suspects, but for the most part they are invisible, unlike a couple other groups I could think of who are all up in our faces 24/7.

I've found them to be a little dysfunctional but generally sympathetic. They are prone to severe alcoholism as everyone well knows, but for the most part they are quiet, low key and have an easy going laconic nature. I just dont see why they of all people are the ones you get worked up over, and seeing as the fact I believe you're a shill, it kind of makes me suspicious. And no, I dont have any Native ancestry.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm not saying they are oppressed and all this other shit. I'm saying they are an odd group to focus all your anger towards for the reasons I already mentioned. Sure they can opportunistically be used as tools to bludgeon white people with, by the usual suspects, but for the most part they are invisible, unlike a couple other groups I could think of who are all up in our faces 24/7.

That depends where you live. Like here in Canada, some Native tribes make certain cities unlivable due to the huge amounts of violence. They also complain a lot about land violations and have set churches on fire or blockade our railroads.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51550821

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_church_burnings

I've found them to be a little dysfunctional but generally sympathetic.

Naw, fuck them. Especially since we give them billions of dollars every year but they still turn around and bitch we're not doing enough for them.

They're also the same group of people who support mass 3rd world immigration. Which is ironic given their own circumstances, but it shows they were always suicidal. No sympathy is needed.

Feel sorry for the Palestinians instead. They get absolutely no help and Israel is actually committed to destroying them.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

His comments are about the Natives of USA and you are discrediting his opinion based on the behavior of the natives of Canada. Natives of USA are not activist at all and they are the most supportive demographic of immigration restrictions.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Is there something about their genes that makes them different? That's actually a weird counter-argument when talking about race.

You might as well say Blacks in Canada are different from Blacks in the U.S. Even without Jim Crow/Slavery, we still have the same issues when it comes to crime/education etc.

Natives of USA are not activist at all and they are the most supportive demographic of immigration restrictions.

https://electioneve2020.com/poll/#/en/demographics/native-american/

60% voted for Biden and 68% support more immigration.

And I know I picked one state but look on the map where Arizona is? So no, I'm not going to believe they actually cared about closing the borders.

Edit: And even before the 2020 election, I remember Natives where the first to mobilize against building a wall around Mexico. Of course they're activist.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-border-wall-tohono-oodham-arizona-tribe

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

There was a poll showing them to be the demographic most supporting immigration restriction but I can't find it.

Is there something about their genes that makes them different? That's actually a weird counter-argument when talking about race.

No, but cultures are different.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There was a poll showing them to be the demographic most supporting immigration restriction but I can't find it.

Doesn't mean much if they vote Democrat. It's like the myth of the "Conservative Muslim". Just because they might support anti-gay stuff, doesn't change they still rather vote for the pro-gay Liberals in the end.

And actions speak louder than words. I've never seen any Native groups try and build Trump's Wall, or blockade any airport. So far, only Whites and some "based" Hispanics have actually tried to stop people from moving.

No, but cultures are different.

Germany, France & Poland technically have different cultures, but it would be naive to say the gulf is as big as comparing them to Africa.

Similarly, we have Indians who ARE the same people, because they lived here before there where borders. Like the Mohawk can be found in Ontario and New York.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_people

And culture is always downstream from race.

[–]shilldetector 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You always support anything that can hurt nationalists while opposing anything that can help them. This is just another example. If Native Americans are shown any acknowledgement and support for being the original inhabitants of North America, then the worry for neoliberal globalists is that Europeans will be encouraged to do the same in Europe and it can be used to halt and reverse the great replacement, as it likely will one day.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If Native Americans are shown any acknowledgement and support for being the original inhabitants of North America,

This was already the case 2 years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Indians for taking Oklahoma territory.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889562040/supreme-court-rules-that-about-half-of-oklahoma-is-indian-land

In fact, saying "Indians should get land" is the least controversial point out there. Jared Taylor has done many write ups that even show that only Indians can practice race realism, such as requiring DNA tests to enter a reservation. White Americans do not have the same luxury after Jim Crow was banned.

is that Europeans will be encouraged to do the same in Europe and it can be used to halt and reverse the great replacement, as it likely will one day.

European history is already full of examples of self determination. Using the Native Indians who are located a continent away is a bizarre role model. Why not look at the Irish? Or the Spanish?

Or once again, even the Palestinians are better because they're up against an enemy who influences the globe. Drunk Indians who are given paychecks for existing are nothing to take inspiration from.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 0 insightful - 2 fun0 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Technically, the Natives first came from Asia. So if they really hate it, get a plane ticket and move to Siberia.

By your own reasoning, shouldn't Palestinians or Tibetans pack up and go elsewhere if they don't like it where they are? I'm sure Israel would be willing to support the former.

Or go live somewhere else in the Americas like Mexico or Brazil. Those places have lots of land.

Those places have lots of land but Canada doesn't?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

By your own reasoning, shouldn't Palestinians or Tibetans pack up and go elsewhere if they don't like it where they are? I'm sure Israel would be willing to support the former.

Both Israel & China annexed another people's land when most of the world observed international treaties and rules.

Canada & the USA predate most of these conventions, so the idea of them giving up land makes as much sense as say... Germany getting Alsace–Lorraine back from France. It happened hundreds of years ago, time to move on.

Also, there really wasn't a such thing as a "Native country". It was basically different tribes who squatted over land we call North America. Europeans came, they fought the same wars the Natives were doing, and we won.

Those places have lots of land but Canada doesn't?

Well the idea is if they felt oppressed so bad, they would leave. After all, the media says they're being "genocided". Why live in a country that supposedly wants you dead?

But the Natives aren't like that. They bitch and whine at both our governments, our governments cuck and give them free shit, but then they whine and bitch again. Like see? They're ungrateful parasites.

With all the money we give them, they could take it and just buy a small piece of Mexico to call home and we would be equal.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Both Israel & China annexed another people's land when most of the world observed international treaties and rules.

They're still free to leave if they don't like it, regardless of how unjustified those land grabs are.

Canada & the USA predate most of these conventions, so the idea of them giving up land makes as much sense as say... Germany getting Alsace–Lorraine back from France.

It doesn't need to make any sense if people want to give First Nations land. They could do so for whatever reason. From their perspective, these governments are course-correcting because people believe amerinds did not have legal recourse.

With all the money we give them, they could take it and just buy a small piece of Mexico to call home and we would be equal.

They're not going to leave especially when they are getting these handouts. There are nearly 1 million First Nations across Canada alone. What makes Mexicans or Brazilians any more receptive to receiving amerinds?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They're still free to leave if they don't like it, regardless of how unjustified those land grabs are.

The Palestinians cling onto UN Resolution 242, which has saw Israel return land to Egypt before in exchange for peace. Not to mention, they were forced to withdraw from Lebanon when local resistance proved too much to handle.

As feeble as it looks, it's clearly not impossible for Palestine to get back territory of their own. Either diplomatically or through continued resistance.

In comparison, there's absolutely no chance at all Canada or the USA voluntarily cease to exist. The USA literally fought a civil war just to keep its Southern half and Canada entered a state of emergency when Quebec tried to break away in the 1970s. The Indians would have to declare war against the U.S/Canadian armies which they stand no chance of winning.

It doesn't need to make any sense if people want to give First Nations land. They could do so for whatever reason. From their perspective, these governments are course-correcting because people believe amerinds did not have legal recourse.

See the above example. Palestinians can technically fight a war of resistance or go through diplomatic channels to earn territory. Nobody in the international community really cares about the Indians or wants to sponsor them in a fight against two really powerful armies.

They're not going to leave especially when they are getting these handouts. There are nearly 1 million First Nations across Canada alone. What makes Mexicans or Brazilians any more receptive to receiving amerinds?

That's my point. They can take the handouts they already have and use it to establish a new community elsewhere. As for Brazil/Mexico being more receptive? They're not. But if they show up with even just $50 million funny money, that's more than enough to live in their own gated communities and enjoy a higher standard of living.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Regardless of whether or not there is legal precedent for them to get their territory back, that still doesn't prevent them from leaving if they wish to.

On your other point, there is no need for the USA and Canada to cease to exist, nor for tribals to go to war with these countries to receive land. If the monetary drain is so unbearable, these countries could give one-time reparations (including territory) to recognized Indian groups. Just because there isn't a resolution prompting the return of land doesn't at all mean that people wouldn't be willing to give Indians land. That doesn't mean that they necessarily should.

If it is their wish to go to Mexico. Africa, or wherever and start new Indian communities there, they're free to do so. But as long as the government is willing to protect and fund these people, they're not going anywhere. Even if they are nuisances, there are far greater ones that whites are facing.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Regardless of whether or not there is legal precedent for them to get their territory back, that still doesn't prevent them from leaving if they wish to.

Technically, there is another group of Palestinians who did leave (by force). The refugees from the original 1948 war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees

To this day, they still demand a right of return, especially as Israel continues to seize their property (i.e settlers who keep entering the West Bank, destroying Palestinians farms etc).

There's a lot more nuance involved why the Palestinians aren't just leaving.

On your other point, there is no need for the USA and Canada to cease to exist, nor for tribals to go to war with these countries to receive land. If the monetary drain is so unbearable, these countries could give one-time reparations (including territory) to recognized Indian groups. Just because there isn't a resolution prompting the return of land doesn't at all mean that people wouldn't be willing to give Indians land. That doesn't mean that they necessarily should.

Where have you been? We give these groups money all the time on the basis that they EXIST. There is absolutely no obligation for this to continue, since the money goes straight to corrupt Chieftains who funny enough, refuse to spend it on their own people. It's the same Africa-tier politics that ends up going nowhere.

But as long as the government is willing to protect and fund these people, they're not going anywhere.

But here's the thing, we don't have to. Just like how illegal immigrants cross the border and by chance, they stay instead of being turned back. That's actually a failure on our part, because we're helping other people through the goodness of our hearts, but the other side is only interested in being a burden to society. And ignoring the issue only makes it easier for our enemies to exploit us.

The only solution is for a Nationalist government to give them an ultimatum. Either accept they'll never get all their land back and just be normal citizens, or revoke their citizenship/Indian status and treat them like any trespasser.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We're writing in circles so I'll just say this.

You're right about there being no obligation to support Indians, and you are right in that the people do not have to protect and fund them. But the majority do believe they are obliged to. Like you said, it is done because people feel bad about the poor Indians. When people have a good reason to stop feeling bad about them, a government with the appropriate power and support could force Indians to make their journey to Mexico, Africa, or wherever.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I'm aware that most people go along with it. But the same "majority" also goes along with demographic replacement and other harmful beliefs, so it's still important to call them out.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Them living in White civilisations is not a right but a privilege.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

This problem is relatively insignificant compared to black worship ruining school curriculums, asian overrepresentation, and affirmative action for blacks dumbing down campuses.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Can I ask you how being black is anti white?

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Black identity is inherently anti-white for several reasons, the most important being that it is one of the few identifiers that is used by blacks specifically to define themselves against whites. I do not mean in the sense that "White" is used by its own people to define themselves from "non-Whites", but in that blacks exclusively define themselves against whites, to the point where terminology itself is based in resentment against whites. Most major talking points among blacks involve their perceived suffering from whites and what can be done to punish whites for the pleasure of blacks. One identifying themselves as "black" is a willing gesture to accept and benefit from this.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I like this framing. Thanks

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You should read about charlotte school of law. They let in too many blacks for affirmative action. The school got so dumb, they lost federal funding and accreditation.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is really helpful for the European nationalists that "Native" Americans are privileged in America. Makes it easy to point out how anti white lefties are.